Class One:
An Introduction to the Decade and the Early Years (1960 and 1961)
Background Programs and Videos
Rosa Parks Story, ACLU Film A good Introduction to Civil Rights Movement and Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1955
Woolworth Lunch Counter Sit-in, 1960
Vanderbilt Re-tracing Freedom Rides with John Lewis and Jim Zwerg, et al, 1961
Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1961
History of Berlin Wall documentary, 1961
Speeches
We will begin with the presidential campaign of 1960. And the first speech is John F. Kennedy’s Houston Ministers’ speech. Ted Sorensen called this one of Kennedy’s three most important speeches. I believe that the other two were the Inaugural address and the Cuban Missile Crisis speech.
John F. Kennedy’s Houston Ministers’ Speech, September 12, 1960
The Houston Ministers’ speech is so important because the religious issue was perhaps the biggest obstacle Kennedy faced in terms of getting elected. There had never been a Catholic president. The only one who ran for the office before (Al Smith of New York) lost badly to Hoover in 1928. The Catholic Church was perceived as something mysterious and, therefore, suspicious, run by an old man in Italy who demanded allegiance to everything that the church taught. The argument—at least as posed by the Protestant leaders—was that Kennedy as a Catholic would have to do whatever the Pope said and could not be trusted to live up to his oath to the Constitution and would discriminate against other religions.
Religion had been an issue in the primaries. His advisors knew it had to be addressed head-on in the campaign, but they had hoped to do it later, closer to election day. In September, however, the leading Protestant figures of the day wrote a letter dissuading their flocks from voting for Kennedy. Therefore, the matter had to be faced right then. As a result, the campaign accepted the offer of the Houston Ministerial Association to address their meeting on September 12. His rival, Richard Nixon, was also invited to speak but declined.
The speech was written over a weekend by Ted Sorensen, Kennedy’s advisor, and primary speechwriter. It doesn’t have the usual rhetorical flair that Kennedy’s speeches are known for, but for a good reason. This is a persuasive speech, designed to reassure the people in that room that JFK is not some mysterious zealot, but rather a human being like most of them—who served in the war, loves his country, and, as a public servant for years, has taken and lived up to his congressional oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
According to Aristotle, there are three means of persuasion—appeals to the heart (emotions), appeals to the head (reason), and being seen by the audience as credible. Kennedy does all three in this speech. The emotional appeal is seen in his wartime service and his brother’s sacrifice and the mention of Texas’s “holy shrine”, the Alamo. The appeal to reason is his voting record and the fact that he has lived up to his oath ever since he came to Congress. Finally, I think they see him as credible by virtue of being there and showing respect for them, and patiently answering their questions.
If Kennedy had not done such a good job on the speech and an even better job in the almost 30-minute Q&A that followed the speech, he probably would not have been elected. It was so effective at explaining Kennedy’s stance on religion that the campaign used clips from it for political ads during the campaign. Before this group of adversaries, he demonstrated his courage as well as his wit. He was respectful of them and their beliefs, but also assertive about his own beliefs and his right to hold them.
Kennedy’s Q&A following the Houston Ministers’ Speech
A good speech always anticipates and answers the questions that might be on the audience’s mind. Kennedy did an excellent job of this. Even though he addressed most of their concerns in the speech, he’s required to answer many of them all over again in the Q&A. But he doesn’t lose his cool or his wit. As he says jokingly at the end, he knew that he made no converts, but he hoped that they had a better sense of who he was and how he could, and would, uphold his oath.
I think what they saw was a man who was a lot like them, not someone to fear just because he happened to be of a different religion. The most amazing thing about the evening is that by the end of the questions, the applause was for Kennedy and not for those inquisitors who were asking the nasty questions.
Eisenhower’s Farewell Address January 17, 1961: WATCH (00:16:12)
It’s easy to be blinded by Kennedy’s good looks, wit, and the glamor that seemed to surround his presidency and fail to recognize and appreciate fully the wisdom that his predecessor had to offer. As Kennedy will say three days later, “the torch has been passed to a new generation”. You see it very clearly looking at Eisenhower’s Farewell and Kennedy’s Inaugural Address back to back.
In his speech, Eisenhower is talking to Kennedy as well as the American people. He is sharing with them the perspective and wisdom that he has gleaned from 50 years in public service, especially the last eight years as president.
This is a formal occasion and the speech is consistent with farewell addresses by other presidents. He has several things to accomplish—thank the nation for the opportunity to serve, give his audience a sense of how things stand at the end of his tenure, and leave them with advice for the future.
The theme of this speech is balance. The balance between branches of the government. The balance between the private and public sectors. The balance between programs so that no one particular program receives a disproportionate share of the budget. And a balance between immediate responses and more deliberate, longer-term solutions.
Without a doubt, the most memorable part of Eisenhower’s speech is his warning about the “military-industrial complex”. In this, he is prescient. And it’s a bit ironic that it is a former five-star general expressing deep misgivings about the armament industry and its close ties with the country’s military establishment. He is also aware and concerned about the growing government expenditures for military research in public and private universities. And the risk that this might pose to the freedom of these institutions. (Another irony: by the end of the decade, students and activists like Angela Davis will express similar concerns.)
But there is more to this speech than just its famous phrase and the speaker’s prescience. He not only warns about the military and its cousins in industry but also about technology and its potential for influencing policy-making. “We must be alert,” he says, “to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific and technological elite.” Think of the influence that Silicon Valley has on the country today.
Like Washington’s Farewell two centuries before, here is an esteemed leader, someone who led the nation to victory in war and then served as its president, sharing his wisdom and thanking the nation for the opportunity to serve.
Also noteworthy about his speech is the speaker’s candor and humility. Eisenhower accomplished a lot in his life and yet, at the end of his term, he is talking about the disappointment he feels that he could not accomplish the biggest goal of all— lasting peace.
I never noticed it until now, but the conclusion of the speech is a prayer for the world, not just the American people. Again, a bit surprising coming from a former warrior.
Finally, note the final gesture of the general-turned-president. As he concludes, he takes off his glasses and leans back in his chair to let us know that the speech is over and so is his service to the nation. It’s a beautifully simple, but symbolic gesture. From a gracious man.
Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961
The last speech is Kennedy’s Inaugural Address. At the beginning of the video, listen to what Ike says to JFK after the latter is sworn in: “You’re it now, boy (?). Congratulations.”
What a contrast with his predecessor’s speech and delivery. The country’s youngest president is succeeding one of its older ones. One of its most experienced public servants is being replaced by one of its least experienced. But their speeches are true to who each one of them is. Eisenhower’s was delivered in his voice. Kennedy’s in his.
An inaugural address is a ceremonial speech calling for grandeur in words as well as writing. It’s a speech that the person giving it has lots of time to prepare for and usually gets lots of input on. This one is the Kennedy-Sorensen team at its best with Kennedy providing the ideas and idealism and Sorensen the “music” to convey them in JFK’s cadence and voice.
Befitting the occasion, Kennedy is upbeat and inspiring. His rhetoric soars on the cold air in what is considered to be one of the most admired inaugural addresses. It’s full of all the usual rhetorical ingredients—anaphora, antithesis, alliteration, allusions. It makes frequent use of the “rule of three’s”, famous quotes, and images that poetically and memorably convey this young president’s vision for the future. (See the accompanying Glossary of Terms.)
Recognizing that he is young and inexperienced, he tries to reassure the American people (and his older Russian counterpart) that he will not back down when confronted with challenges. This speech is a mixture of ideals and tough talk (“…we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe…,”), recognizing that we are locked in a Cold War with a major adversary. At the same time, he is not unaware of the awesome responsibility that comes with possessing a nuclear arsenal.
Kennedy intentionally focuses on the international challenges facing the country. This is not surprising since his interest and focus had been on world affairs since his travel to Europe in the 1930s. A sign of the depth of his knowledge in world politics was the publication of his senior thesis as a well-received book called “Why England Slept”. The speech skirts the major domestic issue of the day—civil rights. It’s obvious he feels much more confident and comfortable talking about international issues than facing the deep-rooted problem of racial injustice.
Reading the first volume of JFK, Fredrik Logevall’s recent biography of Kennedy, has given me a much better appreciation of the late president’s writing ability. In addition to his thesis being made into a book, he was also a reporter for a time and later wrote (with Sorensen’s assistance for sure) his Profiles in Courage. Until now, I’ve tended to give Sorensen most of the credit for JFK’s speeches. But I may have underestimated Kennedy’s contributions. You certainly see his edits any time you come across a ”speaking text” of one of his speeches.
The speech is relatively short and very tightly structured. It begins with an image and a declaration and is followed by successive pledges, arranged in parallel structure, to the many audiences he is addressing. This helps to create the speech’s rhythm along with the frequent use of antithesis which gives it balance. A good example is “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate”. Likewise, when he’s addressing the Russians, he uses anaphora (“let both sides…”) to highlight the many opportunities the adversaries have to work together.
The speech ends with a succession of challenges, beginning with the speech’s most famous line: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
The speaker’s voice and body language are as inspirational as the words he’s delivering. You can feel the young president’s confidence and energy. You also sense his vigor and youth in his going coatless in the 20-degree weather. As we’ll see elsewhere, the “optics”, as they are called these days, are important. We use our eyes as well as our ears to understand what the speaker is communicating.
When I listen to Kennedy’s Inaugural today, it sounds a little dated. A bit too formal due to its abundant use of rhetorical devices. Today, I think we are more used to the informal, conversational style of speaking. Yes, you can still have lofty language and rhythmic and memorable phrasing, but probably not as much, and in such quick succession, as was used back in 1961.
Buck Benedict 